A number of points have been posted while I was sleeping that I would like to comment on.

cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote:

Who says we can't hack in China, Indian, Fuji networks! Its the iNet...which is "free" and unregulated.

I'm not 100% certain about this but couldn't think be taken as an act of war? If a single individual or a minority of citizens attack machines belonging to a particular country it's a lot easier to pass them off as a ``lone group''. If a country specifically targeted another countries infrastructure then it would be different. I'm sure little skirmishes occur all the time, but not to the extent you are implying.

cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote:

About that politician...it sucks what happened to him, but there is no doubt he was somehow involved so therefore the report was accurate (from what you've described) and he prob had a dirty hand in something. Somehow he was involved...that's the point. Noone made fictitious documents and propigated them all over BBC or whatever news source you have there.

I agree with you that what happened to that guy was awful, but I don't agree with you that he was necessarily involved. Police agencies normally cast a really wide net and then eliminate people as they go along. What you are implying is that just being caught in that net is enough to make you guilty. Again, the documents don't have to be fictitious, but the end result is the same. If a certain media organisation wanted the other candidate to win then they would push this story again and again, so people would remember it. It's nothing short of character assassination.

cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote:

Michael Moore is free to express his opinions in Farenheit 911...since everyone realized what a nut-job he was, it was labeled a fiction and dismissed as such.

This may be dangerous territory, so I'll word my sentences carefully. Did people actually realise that he was a ``nut-job'' themselves or were they told he was by the mainstream media, the people who were partly at fault according to the film? Again, it could be character assassination, like capi's example.

Jops wrote:

The problem with this whole situation is we have people playing by the rules except the people who make them. They are somehow above the law shall we say.
...
This is just another Fabian Socialistic movement to silence critics and control speech, plain and simple.

I agree with both and very well put.

Jops wrote:

What about intel on 9/11?

Again, maybe another political hot potato. I do believe that some evidence was either fabricated or elaborated to support the cause to go to war in Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the point that Saddam had them was hammered home (at least here in the UK) by the media for a long time. This poses an interesting question, were the media right in pushing the story of allegations of weapons of mass destruction? The articles weren't anonymous, they were from Government / Department of Defence / Intelligence sources. Were the media manipulated themselves to support going to war with insufficient cause?

cUtEpInKbUnNiEs wrote:

If that was really true BBC, Fox, CNN, CBS etc would be all over it in a heartbeat. As was mentioned earlier, its about sorting through the filth.

Adding to what Jops said: Is it really about sorting through the filth or do news agencies have an agenda of their own? For a news corporation to have no agenda it would require a lot of work and checking of stories, as people themselves naturally have agendas. The BBC is normally taken to be neutral, CNN / FOX etc are not. You cite the example of ``if the story was true the news would report it''. Again, only if it meets their agenda. If Bush makes things easier for the news corporation and the opposition would make things more difficult, do you think they would push out stories like that?

Jops wrote:

What does that have to do with the proposed bill? Nothing. It's all about money and sneaking in things like this is worrisome.

Definitely, items such not be attached to bills that have a near certain chance of passing if they are not related. It's just manipulation to push forward a certain agenda.

Hugo wrote:

Interestingly, I've read the same news via Bruce Schneiers' blog

Indeed I read that too. It seems that the law already took this into account, except nobody really realised it. What this will do however is make a lot more people aware of the situation.

Great discussion everyone. Nice to see people discussing important topics such as this while being civil and friendly.

I have a question for you. Are you a party conservative or a true conservative? There is a notable difference.

Here's a pertinent example.

In WWII you were considered a "Liberal" if you wanted to go to war. A party Liberal that is. Is that the case nowdays? You have what you called Neo-conservatives wanting to go to war. It seems we have done almost a 180 in our party paradigm, no? To clarify, you are now considered a party conservative if you want to go to war. Does this make sense?

My definition of conservatism is small, limited government; adhering to the laws and principles of the constitution; a decentralized unintrusive government. We don't have this anymore.

It's of my own personal opinion that we do not have many true public servants anymore. The elected officials are supposed to represent the people, not enslave or manipulate them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I tire of the Socialistic rhetoric emenating from the District of Criminals. I'm sick of paying taxes so people who are not citizens of this country get free medical care, schooling, food, etc. How many people would you let live for free in your house? If so, please let me know I'll move in next week.

I know this may be a little off the topic of this bill, but the principle is just the same. They control the laws, they control the language, they control the enforcers. You say the wrong thing, if the right person hears it... you will be silenced.

Who says we can't hack in China, Indian, Fuji networks! Its the iNet...which is "free" and unregulated.

The local laws of your country apply, so if you hack a chinese server you've still commited an offence in the U.S and could be tried for it there.
But the Chinese would have to inform U.S law enforcement.

mxb wrote:

I'm not 100% certain about this but couldn't think be taken as an act of war? If a single individual or a minority of citizens attack machines belonging to a particular country it's a lot easier to pass them off as a ``lone group''. If a country specifically targeted another countries infrastructure then it would be different. I'm sure little skirmishes occur all the time, but not to the extent you are implying.

It's could be construed as an act of war if it was government sponsored. It would certainly lead to an international incident...but in fact it happens quite often and gets swept under the carpet.
There have often been incidents such as moonlight maze and various chinese (likely state sponsored) groups trying to steal US corporate designs.